Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Some comments on typical howlers contained in an excerpt from the most recent Chomsky:

“In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington’s basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important.”

Actually, Syria would like nothing better than to subordinate itself to Washington, and has tied itself in pretzels trying to do so. Every effort has been blocked by the neocons for Zionist reasons, a fact inconvenient to Chomsky. Syria’s recent alliance with Iran isn’t one Syria wants, but is solely of necessity. Note how Chomsky ties Israel’s enemies together, reflecting the hidden Zionist point of view.

“For the United States, the primary issue in the Middle East has been and remains effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance.”

Smarter lite Zionists have given up on the claim that the war was about the oil itself, as that is laughable. The sophisticated story is that it was about ‘control of oil’, a slightly less laughable excuse to hide the real Zionist reasons behind the attack (reasons set out in crystal clear form in the ‘Clean Break’ document written by the very people who entered the American government and successfully completed a campaign of lies and deception to carry out their own plan). In fact, the war has gravely reduced American control over Middle East oil, something the oil companies knew for certain would happen before the attack took place. The war was the exact opposite of 100 years of Anglo-American policy in the Middle East, policy that had been spectacularly successful in controlling Middle East oil.

“Iranian influence in the ‘crescent’ challenges U.S. control. By an accident of geography, the world’s major oil resources are in largely Shiite areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington’s worst nightmare would be a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world’s oil and independent of the United States.

Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), based in China. Iran, which already had observer status, is to be admitted as a member of the SCO. The Hong Kong South China Morning Post reported in June 2006 that ‘Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole the limelight at the annual meeting of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) by calling on the group to unite against other countries as his nation faces criticism over its nuclear programme.’ The non-aligned movement meanwhile affirmed Iran’s ‘inalienable right’ to pursue these programs, and the SCO (which includes the states of Central Asia) ‘called on the United States to set a deadline for the withdrawal of military installations from all member states.’

If the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously undermined the U.S. position of power in the world.”

Actually, Bush planners have brought much of that about. Make of it what you will, but when you see somebody walk smack dab into what is supposed to be his worst nightmare, and seems not to care in the least, perhaps that wasn’t his principle concern after all.

“Last July (2006), Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion since 1978. As before, U.S. support for the aggression was a critical factor, the pretexts quickly collapse on inspection, and the consequences for the people of Lebanon are severe. Among the reasons for the U.S.-Israel invasion is that Hezbollah’s rockets could be a deterrent to a potential U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.”

Wow! Let me repeat that last line, so it sinks in: “Among the reasons for the U.S.-Israel invasion is that Hezbollah’s rockets could be a deterrent to a potential U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.” How backasswards is that? In fact, we never heard of an attack on Iran until Israeli strategists learned – to their shock and horror – of the effectiveness in the Israeli psyche of the Hezbollah rockets. Hezbollah having rockets was blamed on Iran; hence the sudden and new need to attack Iran. Iran talk also helps to destabilize the Middle East by driving a wedge between Shi’ites and Sunnis, and serves as a distraction for the failures of the Israeli government (it is less embarrassing to blame the IDF loss on Iran than on Hezbollah).

“Despite the saber-rattling, it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran.”

Even stopped clocks are right twice a day, as is Noam here (but just wait for either President Giuliani or President Clinton).

“Meanwhile Washington may be seeking to destabilize Iran from within.”

This is the other time the clock is right, but the destabilization has been an utter failure, and has even strengthened conservative control in Iran (something which Chomsky notes later).

“The U.S. invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld writes that after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, ‘had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.’ The message of the invasion, loud and clear, was that the U.S. will attack at will, as long as the target is defenseless. Now Iran is ringed by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and particularly Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to U.S. support.”

Very typical Zionism. Chomsky implies that Iran in fact has a nuclear program, something the only people who would know, the official inspectors, have vehemently denied. Thus, if an attack on Iran occurs, Chomsky backs up the Zionist excuse.

The cleverest thing about Chomsky is that he manages to consistently maintain a seemingly ‘progressive’ line while studiously leading the reader away from the truth and providing the basis, by implication, for attacks on enemies of the Likudniks. He really is a genius.

Monday, July 30, 2007

AnthonyWeiner, JerroldNadler, and, needless to say, Tom Lantos (all D–Tel Aviv, and all generally regarded as ‘progressives’), are quick to indicate they will block the Saudi arms deal. We’ll get to find out just how strong the American Establishment really is when it faces the awesome power of the Lobby.

The recent agreement of the American government to supply sophisticated arms to the Saudis is a massive, massive – did I mention massive? – defeat for Israel, and return to form of the American Establishment. Israel is trying to play down its importance, but the failure of the Lobby to, well, lobby, is indicative of the shift in power from the Israeli traitor agents to the traditional power centers in Washington. The Saudi deal represents the first AIPAC failure in years. Note the absolutely typical NYT counter-propaganda campaign based, laughably, in pure NYT style, on ‘one senior administration official’ and on ‘officials interviewed for this article’.

I note that the agreement still has to make it through the Occupied Territories, aka, the American Congress. It will be interesting to see if the Lobby instructs Congress to approve the increased funding to Israel, put in as a sop due to the Saudi deal, while rejecting the Saudi deal itself.

World-famous fiddler Nigel Kennedy recently performed a jazz concert in East Jerusalem, after having refused many offers to appear in Israel. He comments on the issue:

“It's no coincidence. I became aware of the Palestinian story while I was a student in New York. My girlfriend then was Palestinian, and, through her, I began to familiarize myself with and understand the problem even before the [separation] wall and the other atrocities. She had to return home every year or she would lose her citizenship, and, like it was for all of us students, that wasn't exactly her thing. Then I understood that it was simply a way to harass the Palestinians and prevent them from studying.

And today, I was really shocked when I saw the wall here. It's a new type of apartheid, barbaric behavior. How can you impose collective punishment and divide people from one another? We are all residents of the same planet. I would think that the world learned something from South Africa. And the world should boycott a nation that didn't learn. That's why I won't perform in your country.

The concert tonight is very emotional because I am performing for people who are imprisoned, to give them two hours of fun and show them that the world has not forgotten about them."

The Zionist hysteria about boycott/divestment relates to the importance of creating a ‘legitimacy crisis’ in Israel. Between its own media and the Jew-controlled American media, the average Israeli obtains a completely inaccurate view of world elite opinion about what Israel is doing. Negative comments from respected people, whose celebrity allows them to force through the censorship, are important, as there will not be peace until the Israelis themselves get over the lying view they have of their country and themselves, a view fostered by decades of an international misinformation and deception campaign.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Claus Jacobsen, a columnist on Newsvine, banned a couple of members of the website for using the term ‘anti-Semitic’ about an article he wrote, effectively calling them trolls (the social networking sites are pioneers at speaking the truth about Zionism, reflecting increasing American awareness of the truth). Jacobson said (emphasis in red; slight spelling editing by me):

“I believe the consensus will be, once their opposition is broken, that the term ‘anti-Semitic’ can only be used in the rare and extreme cases where actual persecution or discrimination of Jews is advocated.”

In today’s era of human rights we’re now seeing the use of phony human rights concerns as an offensive weapon used to stifle debate about real human rights abuses (in some cases, e. g., Darfur, phony human rights concerns are actually being used a method of encouraging military violence). I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to wonder why the Democrats, mostly funded by Jews, refuse to look out for the most basic interests of their own political party in issues like impeachment, Iran talk, and Iraq withdrawal. There is only one possible explanation for this, but if you raise it, you are immediately called an anti-Semite. This is bullshit. In fact, people who use this technique are, in my opinion, aiders and abetters of one of the greatest systematic campaigns of human rights abuse in the world, that being carried out by Zionists in the Middle East. You may feel yourself to be righteous when you pose as an advocate of human rights, but almost all discussion of the evils of anti-Semitism is just a method of stifling legitimate political debate. I hardly need note that describing the particular individuals involved is not an invitation to persecution of a larger group, but is in fact the opposite, placing blame where blame is due. The reason for the controversy isn’t a legitimate worry about prosecution or discrimination, but a concern that airing the facts will put an end to the real human rights abuses.

Of course, Americans and American wannabes are the most egregious of the offenders. It is difficult to take complaints of human rights abuse seriously from a country which is killing tens of thousand of innocent Iraqis a month, without even the vestige of an anti-war movement. In most cases, claims of anti-Semitism are really claims of anti-Americanism, with Americans rightly embarrassed that the greatest Empire in the world could so easily be destroyed through undermining by a tiny group of Jewish intellectuals and the Jewish Billionaires who fund them. Pointing this out is actually a compliment to the intelligence and derring-do of the people involved, much as we despise their motives, and an insult to the intellectually lazy and so-easily corruptible Americans, who squandered their Empire and now refuse to admit how it happened.

This Onionpiece would be funnier if this kind of thinking weren’t behind the American/Zionist campaigns of genocide in the Middle East. The United States would have never attacked Iraq if Americans felt the people who lived there were anything other than ‘Sand niggers’.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Following up on a previous posting, the Israelis have suddenly, and miraculously, determined that Syria isn’t planning to attack. Israeli planners have to deal with the public relations effect of a Syrian missile counterattack before they can stage a faked reason for attacking Syria.

There is a good reason for the difference in the psychological ability of the Israeli public to withstand suicide attacks as opposed to missile attacks. The suicide attacks are seen, rightly or wrongly, as an inevitable part of living in Israel. On the other hand, the Hezbollah rocket attacks and any future Syrian rocket attacks are correctly perceived as being the direct result of voluntary wars entered into solely so some religious fruitcakes can live on stolen land and fill their swimming pools with stolen water.

Unless Zionist strategists can come up with some way to fool Israelis into believing that Israeli colonialism is inevitable, Israelis aren’t going to accept counterattacks that are the result of wars of choice. The ability of Arabs to fight back is the key. The psychological inability of the Israeli public to accept missile attacks that are the direct result of Israeli aggression could alone spell the end of the Project of building the Israeli Empire. Old fashioned Israeli common sense, as opposed to the murderous schemes of their American ‘friends’ (who live safely out of missile range), gives us reason for optimism.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

One of the themes here recently is how the American Establishment has retaken control of the American government without recourse to the traditional institutions of American political power. Congress, the Executive, and the Press are all Israeli Occupied Territory, so have to be worked around. Fortunately for Americans and the world, the American Establishment is so powerful that it has been able to bring power back under American control, and it is the neocons who are now frustrated.

A remarkable example of this recently occurred with respect to Putin. Zionist attempts to restart the Cold War (more on this later, with a reconsideration of the sinking of the Liberty) have left Putin understandably angry, and Putin’s visit to Bush in Kennebunkport was supposed to calm him down. Instead, Bush, his little mind still controlled by Christian Zionists, made things worse, and Putin left the U. S. absolutely furious. The American Establishment does not want to restart the Cold War – they have plans for Russia, but all of them involve globalism and economic cooperation – so they sent a delegation to Moscow, led by Henry the K (Henry the K is often wrongly described as a neocon, but he is really a gun for hire who follows power around), to try to calm Putin down (and no, it wouldn’t have been planned by Cheney, who wants Putin as furious as possible). The attempted diplomacy didn’t really work, but the effort is another demonstration of how the Establishment is having to work around Bush’s destructive Zionism, together with a demonstration that it is not in the interests of the Establishment to restart the Cold War (though Noam will no doubt hide the real culprits by blaming it on them). The Jew-controlled American press hid the Kissinger junket, as it does not fit the Official Story of what is going on.

Speaking of the Jew-controlled American press, the New Republic appears to have made up a phony series of negative ‘insider’ reports on the Iraq war, in order to undermine the anti-war movement, such as it is, when the deception was uncovered. Americans are going to be very angry when it become politically correct to admit the truth.

There is still the odd American who can’t accept the remarkable hold that Jewish Billionaire money has over the Democrats, but the facts are making the illusion of Democrat independence from the Lobby harder and harder to believe. The Jewish Billionaires have told the Democrats that they can’t stop the war – at least not until the Iraq is in three parts, as provided in Wurmser’s Zionist Plan for the Middle East – so the Democrats merely pretend to have an interest in stopping the war. Democrat supporters who voted solely on the basis that the Democrats were the only way out of the disastrous war are gradually becoming furious at the betrayal. Now John Conyers, a basically decent man, has been ordered by the Jewish Billionaires to stop all talk of impeachment, so he has obeyed. This caused such fury in Cindy Sheehan that Conyers had to have her arrested, not something he would want to do, but being a slave to the Lobby will make you act in uncharacteristic ways.

I have to ask my usual question: just what kind of evidence will be required for supporters of the Democrats to concede that the party is utterly corrupted by the Jewish Billionaires? This corruption is now so deep that Democrat apologists are reduced to sounding like John Birchers when talking about Sheehan (particularly ironic when the undeniable truth about the Democrats resembles an old John Bircher fantasy), whose only flaw is really caring about what she believes in. Since when is it a crime to act with integrity and forcefulness on the right side of an issue? All the Democrat machinations are being led by Rahm Emanuel, and are explained away as some kind of brilliant election strategy, as if doing the exact opposite of what your supporters want, in order to pander to people who will never vote for you, could be described as a ‘strategy’.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

We would have seen an attack on Syria by now if it wasn’t for the example set by Hezbollah last summer. Israeli strategists weren’t alarmed by the fact that Hezbollah had rockets, or that it could lob them into Israel, but were horrified at the reaction of the Israeli public, who freaked out. It is not an exaggeration to say that popular opinion forced the quick Israeli retreat. Not only is this troubling in itself, especially for a country which plans decades of land-stealing wars, but Hezbollah could hardly aim its rockets, and could only reach the closest part of Israel. The most advanced rocket technology, properly targeted, could cause a permanent end to the possibility of a Zionist Empire, and could even lead to the mass exodus from Israel that would represent the suicide of the country itself. Syria seems to have obtained the most advanced Russian rockets available, which, together with training from the Russians (and Iranians?), could terrorize the shockingly easily terrorized Israelis. The Hezbollah Strategy may have permanently changed Middle East history. Even if Syria is bluffing, do the Israelis want to risk it? Remember, the Arabs only have to win one war; Israel has to win them all. The most chilling possibility for Israel is that it wins the war, but so traumatizes its citizens that the most important and mobile of them, the knowledge workers, decide to leave.

In a sense, Israel is the victim of its own success. Decades of mythology, together with considerable military success, have led Israelis to consider themselves almost a ‘normal’ country. Normal countries are safe countries. The ability to withstand the psychological attack of suicide bombings did not translate into an ability to put up with rocket attacks, even incompetent rocket attacks. Israelis like to talk of ‘existential threats’ and being ‘pushed into the sea’ for propaganda purposes, but don’t actually believe any – snicker – Arab could actually do them any serious harm. Israelis are so comfortable now – the greatest army in the Middle East, a monopoly on nuclear weapons, and the backing of the Americans – that they have set themselves up for a big fall. The question of Israeli strategists: are Israelis prepared to risk civilian lives not for any backs-against-the-wall real threat to the country, but just so some religious nuts, most of them living safely in the United States, can build a Zionist Empire?

Monday, July 23, 2007

The unsolved murder of a couple, Ann Barbara Durrant and Leif Bertil Carlsson, on Vancouver Island in 1972 has notable similarities to the unsolved murder of a couple, Lindsay Cutshall and Jason Allen, in Northern California in 2004 (there are also similarities to a murder in Arizona; for a comparison to the Zodiac, a subject which always comes up in unsolved murders of couples, see threads here and here and especially here). There was a lot of evidence, some of it strange, found at the Northern California murder scene. Given the reaction of his surviving family members, it appears likely that the main suspect in the first set of murders, Joseph Henry Burgess, is still alive.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Bush has but 18 months to go, as good a time as any to make some predictions about what will happen, and not happen, before he is replaced by President Giuliani (and the current times subsequently become known as the ‘Golden Age of American Politics’). What gives for the last 18 months?:

The United States won’t attack Iran (or any other place of significance).

Bush and Cheney will keep up their weekly assault on the American Constitution, but, despite much bloviating from the Democrats and their blogging fellow travellers, neither will come even close to impeachment. It is not impossible that Cheney resigns for ‘health reasons’.

There won’t be any domestic terrorist attack on the United States. The idea that one would be necessary gives the American political system way too much credit, as it will go along with what Bush wants with or without another attack.

The Democrats will continue to wiggle around to try to fool Americans into believing that they want American troops out of Iraq. Americans won’t be fooled.

On the day Bush leaves office, there will still be more than 100,000 American troops in Iraq.

The next American elections will be rife with vote fraud, both the old kinds (which won’t have been stopped), and whatever new kinds Rove cooks up.

One of my newer themes is that Americans actually know a lot more than it is permissible to say. While the scope of censorship is narrowing every day, it is still strong enough to block almost all outright statements of the truth. Americans live in a world much like the old Soviet Union, where everybody knew what was going on, but truth had to communicated in secret, using a complicated code. The main bafflegab used by Americans is the anti-Semitism slur (they reach for it so instinctively it is almost humorous), but even that is soon going to look quite silly, or even quaint.

Anthony DiMaggio surveys the evidence that points to the fact that Americans are a lot hipper to the realities than it would appear, once we clear away the barriers put up by various levels of gatekeepers. Almost all the homilies about Israel spouted by the mainstream are pure bullshit, and the ubiquitousness of the bullshit is quite misleading:

“Unconditional support for Israel is relegated primarily to American elites, who, although a tiny minority of the U.S. public, speak with the loudest voice due to their dominance of American political, economic, and media institutions. The commitment of this loud minority to demonizing those who criticize Israel (a category which could easily be defined to include the majority of Americans) is as impressive today as it has ever been.”

Even the term ‘American elites’ defines the group too widely, as it is really limited to the Zionists and those they pay to speak for them. A large reason for my general optimism is that both the American Establishment and real American popular belief is headed towards the truth. Let’s give the average American some credit, as his/her appreciation of the facts is achieved in the face of absolutely no help whatsoever from the American mainstream media, which lies consistently about all matters concerning the Middle East and the American relationship to Israel.

The shit is really going to hit the fan when the Walt/Mearsheimer book appears. They have received a considerable advance (I’m waiting for some wag to suggest the figure of $6,000,000), so the publisher expects to sell a lot of books, which will entail a lot of discussion. As the main thesis is undeniable, but must be denied for Zionism to continue to thrive, I don’t expect that Alan Dershowitz will get any sleep for the next six months. Largely due to the Iraq war and the common American knowledge who is really responsible for that disaster, Zionism has ‘jumped the shark’ in the U. S., and the usual blanket attack by the usual suspects will only confirm what everybody already knows.

Friday, July 20, 2007

From a short biography of American actress Natalie Portman (emphasis throughout in red):

“Portman graduated Syosset High School in Syosset, New York; June of 1999 and was a straight-A honors student. After high school she continued to maintain straight-A's through her time at Harvard where she graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Psychology June 5, 2003. She is credited as a research assistant to Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz's Case For Israel. As of 2005 Portman is pursuing graduate studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel.”

A connection with Dershowitz’s book is not something you want on your resume (is Portman the ‘research assistant’ referred to in the third column of page 32 of the article reprinted here?). Portman is, nevertheless, a ‘liberal’:

“On February 23, 2005, Israeli police moved her away from Jerusalem's Western Wall after protests by religious Jews who were praying at the holy site. She and the Israeli actor Aki Avni were kissing next to the Wall for a movie called Free Zone. This was deemed to be immodest for the holy site. Men who were praying heckled the couple until police stepped in and suggested they return later. The site is under the authority of Orthodox Judaism, and Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch, who is responsible for the site, said the actors' conduct violated the code of conduct.”

I’d be more impressed if she had been caught wailing near the kissing wall. This kind of thing proves you can hold liberal ideas towards organized religion and still be a part of the Thrill Kill Cult. Finally, and most eerily:

“Natalie's paternal family are Israeli descendants of Jewish immigrants from Poland, while her American mother's family is descended from Jewish refugees from Austria and Russia.”

Again, I ask the question: why do the Poles hate Muslims so much? The Thrill Kill Cult is entirely, or almost entirely, composed of American Jews of Polish descent.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

TB Andrew, who felt he could fly to Europe on a crowded airplane as he didn’t have the ‘bad’ TB, then had to sneak back through Canada on another crowded airplane when he discovered he had the ‘bad’ TB and the only place in the world which could treat him was in Denver, then was diagnosed by the Denver experts as having the ‘bad’ TB and was readied for the kind of lung surgery that was the only way to cure him, then announced that he didn’t have the ‘bad’ TB after all – are you still with me? – has announced that he is going to have the lung surgery, and in fact has apparently had it. You’ll remember that this is the kind of lung surgery mandated for the kind of infection he doesn’t have, but having it gives him ‘peace of mind’.

An article on the Vodaphone Greece scandal, which involved the secret monitoring by parties unknown of the cell-phone conversations of prominent Greek politicians. The first suspect is the American NSA, checking up on Greek politicians to make sure there were no ‘incidents’ at the Athens Olympics due to lax security (the Greeks are always suspected of being overly friendly to ‘terrorists’). The counter-argument to NSA involvement in this particular scandal is that the NSA didn’t need inside access to spy on such conversations.

The cleverest argument, based on Vodaphone’s odd inability to keep records in the middle of an investigation, coupled with the fact it shut down the system in a way which conveniently made investigation impossible, is that the entire spying story was manufactured by Vodaphone itself, to cover the fact that it had altered the Ericsson system to provide features for which did not want to pay Ericsson’s license fees (Vodaphone has also exhibited an inexplicable inability to understand what it had actually bought from Ericsson). When Ericsson discovered anomalies in a routine inspection caused by lost text messages, the rogue spying story was created, and the Greek engineer who died was murdered in a fake suicide as part of the cover-up (see here, and the comments here and here).

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

The Guardian and The Observer are in the middle of a remarkable series of articles about Iran and the chances of an American attack on Iran, the latest of which is here (or here). All of them follow the Miller/Gordon style made famous in the NYT series of lies about Iraq (of course, Gordon is continuing the tradition by lying for the NYT about Iran). The style is hard to miss: the articles rely on a single-source anonymous tipster from Washington, i.e., a Zionist working for the Lobby, to spread an obvious pile of horseshit, with the fine-print qualifications in the articles not reflected in the headlines. The most recent relies solely on a “well-placed source in Washington”. It backs this up with a quote from a London thinktanker, who says (emphasis in red):

“"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact.”

This pattern of deception in The Guardian about Iran has become so obvious that it is creating a controversy of its own, with the paper receiving the worst insult in journalism, being compared to the New York Times.

As I’ve said before, the point of ‘Iran talk’ has nothing to do with an actual attack on Iran, but is a Zionist invention intended to increase Sunni-Shi’ite dissension, dissension which is being successfully exploited by Israel to work on building the Zionist Empire. Everybody who repeats ‘Iran talk’, whether lies about Iran or lies about the upcoming supposed American attack on Iran, is a Zionist fellow-traveler, as evil as Pipes or Dershowitz or Kristol or Perle.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Conrad Black has no reasonable chance of succeeding on his appeal, will receive a good long sentence (he’s showed not one iota of contrition, and treated the proceedings, the prosecution, and even the judge, with complete contempt), and his bail hearing is on Thursday, when he might even be denied bail or have to wear some sort of ankle bracelet to prevent escape. This is his only chance to avoid dying in prison. His evil wife, the cause of all his problems, has no doubt been telling him that the Gestapo can arrive at any time (so true!; Amiel has expressly compared their plight to the plight of Holocaust victims!), so he is probably prepared.

He needs some stunt doubles to play him and Amiel at his hotel during the coming days, showing up at breakfast, etc., so as not to create suspicion. Most of his big assets are seized or subject to liens, but he has been spending literally tens of millions of dollars on his defense (actually, if he works his way to appeal, he will have spent more on defense than the prosecutors claim he stole!), and a guy like Conrad knows how to hide money offshore. All he needs is a small airstrip near Chicago and a small plane to fly him to Texas or Florida. Then its a hop, skip and jump to freedom in Central America or the Caribbean. There are a lot of officials who will look the other way in return for the friendship, and cash, of a rich gentleman like Black. Robert Vesco has been on the lam for years (he is said to now be in jail in Cuba). Conrad can live in the mansion next to Lord Lucan. Skipping the country is the only hope for a freedom fighter like Black – a man who stands up for the rights of the elites to pay for their wife’s jewels from money stolen from the commoners – to escape the nazis in the American justice system.

Remember the mysteriousassassination of Canadian environmental philanthropist Glen Davis outside the Canadian offices of the World Wildlife Fund in Toronto? It turns out that Davis was the main benefactor to a number of Canadian environmental charities. He was so important that the charities may go out of business without his continued funding. The police have apparently made no progress in solving the crime (what you would expect if it was a professional hit). If they were serious about it, they would investigate what the charities he funded were blocking – mines, oil exploration, pipelines. Follow the money and you will probably find an environmental or conservation charity that was:

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Abe Foxman, head of the ADL (and, naturally, of Polish Jewish descent), became frustrated with some questions from a Jewish audience and said (via jews sans frontieres, who also covers official Jewish denial of the genocide against the Armenians):

“I don’t represent you nor the Jewish community! I represent the donors.”

Exactly. This reminds me of the new genre of blogging stories, the ones where the liberal American-Jewish blogger enters the lions’ den of official Jewish opinion in some public forum, where he or she is lambasted by the official opinion leaders in attendance for taking a sane position on Israel. The joke is that the liberal blogger actually represents mainstream Jewish opinion, and the official opinion leaders represent only a handful of rich donors who are sponsoring this kill-all-the-Arabs-and-steal-their-land millenialist cult (btw, given the significance of the number 6,000,000 to Central European Jewish mysticism/numerology, is the Messiah supposed to show up when the Jews have arranged for the death of 6,000,000 Muslims?). Yet if you try to point out that the instigators of the problem are this tiny minority of very rich people, most of whom also benefit financially by connection to the Israeli arms industry, you are immediately called an anti-Semite. If there is hatred involved, it looks more like ‘Class envy’ rather than bigotry.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler told a Conference on the Future of the Jewish People that Jews face a "gathering storm" with multiple threats from Iran, Hezbollah, Al-Qai'da, Hamas and international terrorism. Let’s see:

Iran is no threat to Israel, but is threatened by a nuclear attack from Israel, based on the two lies about Iran having a nuclear program and the Iranian President having threatened to wipe Israel off the map (both lies promulgated by Cotler, amongst many other Zionists).

Hezbollah is no threat to Israel unless Israel attacks Lebanon again, and Hezbollah was in fact created in response to the first illegal attack by Israel on Lebanon.

Al Qaeda is the code word for the villain behind ‘Islamofascism’, a concept developed with the ‘war on terror’ in Israeli think tanks in order to justify continued American sponsorship of Israel after the end of the Cold War. The anger behind groups like al Qaeda is largelycaused by Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians.

Hamas was financially supported by Israel in order to provide opposition to Arafat.

It appears that the entire “gathering storm” has been caused by the Jews themselves, giving new meaning to the term ‘self-hating’.

One reason why Zionism is a uniquely dangerous form of colonialist racism is that it is the only form of such racism that is attempting to re-jig all of international law in order to allow it to commit the war crimes and crimes against humanity which it finds necessary to build the Israeli Empire. Yet another evil conference at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya is attempting to eviscerate the Geneva Convention and the Hague Rules.

“The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.”

See also here and here. The whole point of a terrorist attack is to associate an attack against civilians with a political complaint made against the country in which those civilians live. Failure to take immediate credit for such an attack defeats the whole purpose for the attack.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Rudy Giuliani has been overdosing on Zionist foreign-policy advisors – really, really, really hard-core thrill-kill-cult Zionists – and in a showy way that is intended to be noticed. This isn’t a way to attract American voters or even Republican delegates. Rudy is using his ostentatious Zionism as bait to attract Jewish Billionaires and their political donations. He has correctly sized up the facts on the ground, and realizes that the most likely scenario is that he will be running against Hillary. The Jewish donations normally are directed almost entirely to Democrats, and Rudy is attempting to poach this money from her.

It may be difficult to comprehend, but Rudy, the candidate for Israel, is very electable. He’ll have oodles of money; the media, controlled by you-know-who, will stop writing nasty things about him and start dredging up nasty things about Hillary (and find some new ones); there is a considerable portion of the country who wouldn’t vote for Hillary if she was the last candidate on earth; he’s got 9–11 to continue to harp on (the ‘Family Guy’ episode where Lois wins over Mayor West by answering all questions, no matter what the subject, with ‘9–11’, sounds exactly like Rudy); he can pretend to have the trendy ‘moderate’ views on all the issues that don’t matter; and, of course, the vote fraud issues, particularly in the key states, have still not been fixed. Despite the fact he is obviously insane and surrounds himself with the lowest of low-lifes, it is not a given that the next president will be a Democrat (the media is flying this idea in order to rally the Republican troops).

If you thought Bush’s slavery to the Lobby was bad, just wait for the next election. Both candidates are going to engage in an orgy of Israeli butt kissing. The United States is now a one-party state, and that party is Likud.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Read David Frum’s column from March 19, 2003 in which he calls the anti-war ‘paleoconservatives’, amongst other things, racist, anti-Semitic traitors. Funny how they also turned out to be right. Frum’s subtitle, “A war against America”, best describes what Frum and his neocon pals have been doing.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Via the The Angry Arab News Service, Timor Göksel is interviewed by Linda Butler on his experiences as a peacekeeper in south Lebanon, and his theory for the Israeli attack on the UN peacekeeping outpost at Khiyam, an attack which resulted in the death of four UN peacekeepers (emphasis in red):

“But I personally don’t think the attacks were deliberate in the sense of targeting the UN per se. In a way, it’s worse: the Israelis just didn’t care. I mean, they knew those UN guys were there. The base was very clearly marked and they’d been hitting close to it all day, they’d been repeatedly warned. But they had their own agenda and if a couple of UN guys get killed, tough. It’s the same mindset that led them to shell the Fijian battalion headquarters in April 1996, when more than 100 mostly women and children were killed.*

Butler: But I don’t see, in this latest war, what would be gained in pounding the Khiyam post.

Göksel: Simply that the UN post was about 100 meters from the famous Khiyam prison, which had become a museum of the Israeli occupation of the south. Hizballah had turned it into a kind of shrine of anti-Israelism and the Israelis wanted it gone. So they destroyed it, and because it was solidly built it took a while to completely level it, and a lot of what was around was leveled too. Also, Hizballah anti-tank units in Khiyam had made it impossible for the Israelis to advance toward the Biqa‘.The reserve armored brigade the IDF had sent to clear the way performed dismally, by the way. One battalion left the battlefield without orders, another battalion commander resigned in the midst of battle, and the brigade commander was left alone in the field. Not a glorious chapter in the history of the IDF. So the Israelis, as usual, brought in the air force to do the job and if that means that some UN soldiers have to die, so be it.”

He also has an interesting comment on the Palestinian collaboration problem:

“Now, the Palestinians of course had a serious, built in problem, and nobody knew it better than Arafat. He said, ‘I know that people from my organization are reporting to the Israelis, but this is the price we pay for occupation.’ And it’s true – if a guy’s family is under occupation in Palestine it’s easy to turn him around. All you have to say is ‘That brother of yours in jail won’t get out for the next twenty years unless you provide us with such and such, but if you do he’ll be out next week.’ Or your father ends up in jail. You want him to stay in jail? You get the message. You do this or your family will pay the price. The Israelis do that beautifully, of course, which is why they were able to infiltrate, and still do, the Palestinian structure.”

I’ll admit to being baffled by therelease of the DC Madam’s phone records (wiki). Her explanation for the rush to release is incoherent, about as senseless as the prosecution arguments for why the numbers should have remained under a court-ordered gag. She has left herself open for legal troubles in the future (in fact, her problems have worsened by the acknowledgment that the release was necessitated by sloppiness in the procedure of spreading the information around), and seems to have lost all her leverage in her current criminal proceedings, leverage which she acknowledged she was happy to have. Could the records have been altered to remove the numbers of the big names, with this release just being part of the ‘sweating’ process? She’s already taken down one sanctity-of-hetero-marriage horndog (with a history of similar allegations, and whose apology came out so quick he must have had it ready). Is that supposed to be the warning to the rest of official Washington?

Monday, July 09, 2007

Deborah Jeane Palfrey can nowrelease or sell her phone records, the judge hearing the issue being baffled at what possible basis could have been behind the gagging in the first place, as it had no possible connection to the criminal charges she faces. The main argument that had succeeded in obtaining the temporary restraining orders was that the list could be used to harass witnesses, an obviously bogus claim made for the sole purpose of protecting the guilty Washington whoremongers. The prosecutors, who were given a rough ride in the judgment for their struggles at coming up with a plausible argument, would have fared better with a male judge, someone who would have understood the delicacy of the situation.

Now we are hearing the threats to release the records, an obvious ploy to sweat official Washington into throwing the criminal case out on a technicality or offering her an easy plea bargain. She can’t actually release the records because:

there could be a lot of innocent numbers on the list (or at least men who could claim innocence, with no way for her to prove otherwise), and the implications of a number being on the list are potentially defamatory, leading to all sorts of legal problems;

the only names that matter are the Washington hypocrites – politicians and bureaucrats who play the ‘family values’ card – and their names are only useful to Palfrey if they are not released, so they can be used as leverage.

There are very good reasons why this kind of list never sees the light of day. Once she gets her desired outcome the list will disappear.

The British Transport and General Workers Union, the biggest general union in the UK, hascalledfor its members to join the consumer boycott of Israel, comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany. The Israelis, brains addled by decades of seeing the world entirely in terms of anti-Semitism, are intellectually incapable of understanding what is going on, matching boycott with boycott, and seemingly believing all they have is a PR problem that can be dealt with by calling people names.

It seems to be commonplace amongst Americans that Bush commuted Libby’s sentence in order to protect the Bush Administration from Libby spilling the beans. I think this is a misunderstanding of how a criminal organization like the Bush Crime Family operates, and a misunderstanding of what Libby was really up to. Just like the Mafia, the Bush Crime Family owes much of its success to the fact that everybody keeps their mouth shut. A consigliere like Libby keeps his mouth shut because he is a man of honor who follows the law of omertà. The deal has always been that Libby would lie in order to protect Cheney and the Bush reelection campaign. In return, Libby could use whatever arguments he could to beat the rap, failing which, Bush would do whatever was necessary to keep Libby out of jail. The commutation was a wrinkle caused by the judges who didn’t allow Libby’s lawyers to delay his going to jail long enough to wait for a politically opportune time for Bush to issue a pardon. Bush kept Libby out of jail because that was the deal he made with Libby, and that is the kind of promise a man of honor keeps. Libby couldn’t talk about anything because he is still working for Israel, and anything he might say could reveal his true motivations, and thus would be harmful to Zionist Imperialism.

The only hope for Barry Bonds is to hit the home run that is one less than the 755 of Hank Aaron, run around the bases, grab a microphone at home base, and announce his immediate retirement. He would go out with dignity, instead of being the the biggest asterisk in pro sports.

Sunday, July 08, 2007

I think what really bothers me about Iran talk (talk about an upcoming illegal American or Israeli attack on Iran), even by those who talk about it ostensibly to attempt to prevent it, is that the extreme unlikelihood of the attack means that even the Zionist talkers have an agenda other than actually promoting the attack. The main goal of Zionist imperialism is to cause unrest in the Middle East to have everybody fighting each other in order to allow Israel to more easily steal the land it intends to steal. Iran talk causes unease in Iran, which provokes a reaction, which causes unease in Saudi Arabia, which provokes a reaction, and so on, leaving the entire Middle East unnecessarily rattled and disturbed. Iran talk just abets the Zionist plans, and even those who think they are doing good by talking it up might as well apply for a award from the ADL.

Libby has been accused of being an intelligence agent for Israel's Mossad. That sounds about right. I believe the technical term is “Sayanim”, although Libby, due to his background and position, may be a step or two above a ‘sleeper agent’ (see also here, and from a dodgy source with good info, here; btw, have you noticed that the traditional ‘dodgy’ sources are finding more acceptance in the mainstream, due to the fact that they are the pioneers in certain areas of truth?). There has long been speculation that the Mossad has a hidden spy-chief in the upper reaches of the American government. Libby is the most spectacular example of the phenomenon of so-called ‘dual loyalties’ (so-called as his only real loyalty is to Israel), and the commutation of his ‘political’ sentence is part of the education process for the greater American public about this important problem.

The $75 million American dirty information tricks campaign against Iran known as the ‘democracy fund’ has turned into a total fiasco. Every institution associated with it, even the once respected Farsi service of the V. O. A., has been tainted. Americans Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh seem to have been arrested in Iran as a direct result of it. Almost all the money goes to fat-cat salaries in institutions in the United States to produce the usual propaganda that would otherwise have been produced for free. The usual ex-pat Chalabi-types, wannabe Iranian puppet leaders of the future, circle the fund like flies around shit. Iranian dissident journalist Emadeddin Baghi said:

“The [democracy] money is a blade. Our government accuses us of receiving money from the Americans. All of a sudden, my normal human rights work becomes political. I have one question: Why do I have to suffer when this money is going to pay for someone else’s salary in Washington?”

The Official Story of the capture of the London terror cell is that it was assembled by the authorities through following tracks from the cell phone in the car that didn’t blow up. The terrorists were supposed to trigger the ‘bomb’ by phoning the cell phone, but despite repeated calls, the car failed to explode. The authorities tracked the calls back to one or two suspects, and then followed cell phone, email and text messages to round up the rest.

Most of the people rounded up were doctors, or associated with the medical profession, so the cell became known in the media as a conspiracy of doctors. The fact that the alleged main guy, the only one charged to date, was not a medical doctor puts a bit of a kink in the theory (correction: the guy charged was a doctor, but his alleged accomplice, the Human Fireball, not yet charged possibly because the police have been unable to interview him due to his injuries, was an aeronautical engineer). In fact, what linked the ‘cell’ was the fact that they were all Muslim professionals who were recent immigrants and associated with the same medical or educational institutions. These is no reason to believe that the mere fact they were in a social network with the one accused guy proved that they were part of any kind of terrorist group.

You can’t fault the police for following up the leads, but you can fault the authorities for rushing to judgment and turning this into a massive terrorist conspiracy before all the information was in. A large group of suspects is in custody. Their lives and careers are in ruins solely on the basis of having some kind of technological connection with the accused, a fact that can have many completely innocent explanations. Had the first suspect been a white Christian bank robber, none of this wider analysis of the cell would have occurred. The police may have followed up on his contacts, but they would not have automatically assumed that contact proved some sort of participation in a bank robbing conspiracy.

The fact is that Bibi Netanyahu’s ‘War on Terror’ is, and was intended to be, a war on Islam intended to assist Israel in stealing the lands it intends to steal. The suspects have been rounded up because they are Muslims, and not for any good reason. In fact, the British are now talking about putting restrictions on foreign-born doctors, which is a polite way of saying Muslim doctors, even though the doctor part of the alleged conspiracy is falling apart (even more bizarrely, American right-wingers are blaming it all on ‘socialized medicine’!).

Now, the one guy charged is bring linked directly to al Qaeda, knowing “one of the terror group's most high-profile bomb makers in Europe”. This in fact makes the whole story even less likely, as the terrorist background he is supposed to have is completely inconsistent with his failure to produce any kind of workable bomb.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

From James Petras, superbly summarizing (or here) the American problem with the Zionist Power Configuration (emphasis in red):

“The US is the only country in the world where the peace movement is unwilling to recognize, publically condemn or oppose the major influential political and social institutions consistently supporting and promoting the US wars in the Middle East. The political power of the pro-Israel power configuration, led by the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), supported within the government by highly placed pro-Israel Congressional leaders and White House and Pentagon officials has been well documented in books and articles by leading journalists, scholars and former President Jimmy Carter. The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC) has over two thousand full-time functionaries, more than 250,000 activists, over a thousand billionaire and multi-millionaire political donors who contribute funds both political parties. The ZPC secures 20% of the US foreign military aid budget for Israel, over 95% congressional support for Israel’s boycott and armed incursions in Gaza, invasion of Lebanon and preemptive military option against Iran.

The US invasion and occupation policy in Iraq, including the fabricated evidence justifying the invasion, was deeply influenced by top officials with long-standing loyalties and ties to Israel. Wolfowitz and Feith, numbers 2 and 3 in the Pentagon, are life-long Zionists, who lost security clearance early in their careers for handing over documents to Israel. Vice President Cheney’s chief foreign policy adviser in the planning of the Iraq invasion is Irving Lewis Liebowitz ('Scooter Libby’). He is a protégé and long-time collaborator of Wolfowitz and a convicted felon. Libby-Liebowitz committed perjury, defending the White House’s complicity in punishing officials critical of its Iraq war propaganda. Libby-Liebowitz received powerful political and financial support from the pro-Israel lobby during his trial. No sooner did he lose his appeal on his conviction on five counts of perjury, obstructing justice and lying, than the ZPC convinced President Bush to ‘commute’ his prison sentence, in effect freeing him from a 30 month prison sentence before he had served a day. While Democratic politicians and some peace leaders criticized President Bush, none dared hold responsible the pro-Israel lobby which pressured the White House.

The Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO) – numbering 52 – and their regional and local affiliates are the leading force transmitting Israel’s war agenda against Iran. The PMAJO, working closely with US-Israeli Congressman Rahm Emmanuel and leading Zionist Senators Charles Schumer and Joseph Lieberman, succeeded in eliminating a clause in the budget appropriation setting a date for the withdrawal for US troops from Iraq.

In contrast to the successful vast propaganda, congressional and media campaigns, organized and funded by the pro-Israel lobbies for the war policies, there is no public record of the big oil companies supporting the Iraq war, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon or the military threats of preemptive attacks on Iran. Interviews with investment bankers, oil company executives and a thorough review of the major Petroleum Institute publications over the past seven years provide conclusive evidence that ‘Big Oil’ was deeply interested in negotiating oil agreements with Saddam Hussein and the Iranian Islamic government. ‘Big Oil’ perceives US Middle East wars as a threat to their long-standing profitable relations with all the conservative Arab oil states in the Gulf. Despite the strategic position in the US economy and their great wealth ‘Big Oil’ was totally incapable of countering their political power and organized influence of the pro-Israel lobby. In fact Big Oil was totally marginalized by the White House National Security Advisor for the Middle East, Elliot Abrams, a fanatical Zionist and militarist.

Despite the massive and sustained pro-war activity of the leading Zionist organizations inside and outside of the government and despite the absence of any overt or covert pro-war campaign by ‘Big Oil’, the leaders of the US peace movement have refused to attack the pro-Israel war lobby and continue to mouth unfounded clichés about the role of ‘Big Oil’ in the Middle East conflicts.

The apparently ‘radical’ slogans against the oil industry by some leading intellectual critics of the war has served as a ‘cover’ to avoid the much more challenging task of taking on the powerful, Zionist lobby. There are several reasons for the failure of the leaders of the peace movement to confront the militant Zionist lobby. One is fear of the powerful propaganda and smear campaign which the pro-Israel lobby is expert at mounting, with its aggressive accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ and its capacity to blacklist critics, leading to job loss, career destruction, public abuse and death threats.

The second reason that peace leaders fail to criticize the leading pro-war lobby is because of the influence of pro-Israel ‘progressives’ in the movement. These progressives condition their support of ‘peace in Iraq’ only if the movement does not criticize the pro-war Israel lobby in and outside the US government, the role of Israel as a belligerent partner to the US in Lebanon, Palestine and Kurdish Northern Iraq. A movement claiming to be in favor of peace, which refuses to attack the main proponents of war, is pursuing irrelevance: it deflects attention from the pro-Israel high officials in the government and the lobbyists in Congress who back the war and set the White House’s Middle East agenda. By focusing attention exclusively on President Bush, the peace leaders failed to confront the majority pro-Israel Democratic congress people who fund Bush’s war, back his escalation of troops and give unconditional support to Israel’s military option for Iran.

The collapse of the US peace movement, the lack of credibility of most of its leaders and the demoralization of many activists can be traced to strategic political failures: the unwillingness to identify and confront the real pro-war movements and the inability to create a political alternative to the bellicose Democratic Party. The political failure of the leaders of the peace movement is all the more dramatic in the face of the large majority of passive Americans who oppose the war, most of whom did not display their flags this Fourth of July and are not led in tow by either the pro-Israel lobby or their intellectual apologists within progressive circles.

The word to anti-war critics of the world is that over sixty percent of the US public opposes the war but our streets are empty because our peace movement leaders are spineless and politically impotent.”

The complete absence of a viable American peace movement needs an explanation other than the circular one that ‘kids these days’ are politically uninvolved. Zionism has so corrupted American politics that it has led to an apparent detachment from social and political involvement, which is really frustration in the knowledge that all ‘progressive’ institutions have been corrupted to the extent that they are not just useless, but counterproductive. This phenomenon fits into the larger theme that ‘progressive’ politics in the United States has been destroyed from within through the fact that many of the natural leaders of the left have been ruined by the ScareJew, which has forced them to the extreme right in order to justify support for the Israeli Empire, an Empire required by the fact that the coming new Holocaust can only be prevented by an ark for the Jewish people. Support for the Israeli Empire has necessitated support for increased American militarism, obviously an approach inconsistent with any possible peace movement.

Americans are much more savvy than we are inclined to believe, and younger Americans have the big advantage of internet awareness. Knowledge of the Zionist corruption of American ‘progressive’ politics explains why people are so frustrated and uninvolved (of course, the anti-Semitism slur is used by everybody to suppress the truth, so it is relatively rare to hear the real reasons for political uninvolvement). The American Establishment has a similar problem, and similar frustration, but of course has immense power, and is dealing with the problem by working around the usual institutions of government. The average person hasn’t got the influence to work around the existing protest movements and existing ‘progressive’ politics.

The preliminary step in fixing the problem – and the damage caused by the Zionists is so extreme it may take decades to fix, and may in fact depend on the natural and inevitable collapse of the State of Israel through its own internal racist contradictions – is to put the blame on the real perpetrators of the conspiracy against the American people and the peoples of the Middle East. This is a relatively tiny, and easily identifiable, group of rich Jews and rich Christian Zionists, together with their supporting functionaries, toadies, and apologists, including, sadly, most of the main spokespeople for the American ‘left’.

Everybody in the United States – except possibly for a few prominent columnists and bloggers – knows that a small group of Jews manipulated the American government into the disastrous plan of attacking Iraq, solely based on the interests of the Israeli right, and completely against the interests of the American Establishment and the American people. Of course, no one can actually say this out loud, a fact which leads to some hilarious confusion.

Here’s Steve Benen complaining about Marty Peretz's incoherent analysis of the Libby trial. Peretz, following Dershowitz, claims that the Libby prosecution is entirely political. A Republican President appoints a Republican prosecutor who brings the case up before a Republican judge, with an appeal on bail heard before three Republican judges – how can they possibly claim Libby’s prosecution is political? Normally, all these people would have handled Libby with kid gloves, and protected him from any legal harm. Yet we can see an unmistakable animus in both Judge Walton and the court of appeal judges, all of whom want to see Libby in shackles as quickly as possible. What gives?

We can’t speak the truth about how the American Establishment was shafted by the Jews, so we aren’t allowed to notice how the representatives of that Establishment are taking their fury out on Libby. Of course, Peretz and Dershowitz have to talk in code, as saying that the prosecution against Libby was anti-Semitic would entail an admission that Libby was being punished because of his role in a traitorous attack on the United States by a Jewish Cabal. Peretz wrote:

“. . . double standards are not only evident in arguments about the ongoing disputes between the Israelis and Palestinians and among the Arabs. There are double standards in conservative thought in America and in liberal thought, as well.”

What the hell is he doing talking about the Middle East in a preamble to supporting Libby’s commutation? Dershowitz wrote:

“What the judges did was also political, but that was entirely improper, because judges are not allowed to act politically. They do act politically, of course, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s disgracefully political decision in Bush v. Gore. But the fact that they do act politically does not make it right. It is never proper for a court to take partisan political considerations into account when seeking to administer justice in an individual case.

The trial judge too acted politically, when he imposed the harshly excessive sentence on Libby, virtually provoking the president into commuting it.

This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby’s actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges’ rulings were political. The appellate court judges’ decision to deny bail was political. And the President’s decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the President acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence.”

Again, without the hidden subtext, this is just incoherent. Dershowitz's piece is entitled “Double Standard Watch”. Double Standard? What the hell is he talking about?

Of course, Peretz and Dershowitz are completely correct. The entire treatment of Libby in the courts was political. The obvious hatred of Libby was inspired by the fury of the American Establishment at the perfidy of the Jews. Peretz and Dershowitz sound addled because they can’t admit the justice behind the fury. Analysts reading Peretz and Dershowitz argue that these guys have lost their minds as the analysts can’t be seen to notice the truth of the subtext. Jewish readers of both columns understand completely what “Double Standard” means.

Expect to see more of the same in the coming months. I would not be in the least surprised to see IRS agents hanging around the the offices of some of the most prominent Jewish Billionaires. The American Establishment is furious, and they have the power to do something about it. Apologists for Israel who like to throw the anti-Semite slur around are now going to get to see some of the real thing. Never forget that the American Establishment never uses the J-Word; they prefer the K-Word.

Republican Presidential candidates usually run to the right to be nominated, then head for the center in order to be elected. I’ve noticed an odd trend in the current American campaigning, where leaks of a hidden past of supporting ‘liberal’ ideas like abortion rights are being used to prove that the candidates are actually more centrist than their current official pronouncements might lead you to think. They still all follow the hell-and-brimstone script handed to them by the Christian Right, but the perception appears to be that Americans, tiring of all the conservative moral battles, are headed leftwards, and candidates like and Giuliani and Thompson want to introduce a touch of ambiguity over just how right-wing they really are.

The more cynical view is that faux centrism is just being used to perpetrate the same old right-wing politics, with no real change on any of the important issues. Leaning to the center on the hot-button ‘lifestyle’ issues – and I don’t mean to belittle their importance – allows people to vote towards the center without affecting the continuing American move to the right on class issues.

Speaking of ambiguity, is hidden American liberalism going to skip over the woman President, and the gay President, and head directly to the first known bisexual President? I’m reminded of Lenny Bruce riffing on Rock Hudson. Of course, all the speculation seems derived from Andrew Sullivan – has there been a bigger blight on American opinion in recent years? – and it bears the whiff of a political dirty trick inspired by support for one of the other candidates.

During the 1950s, the Israelis systematically, and expressly for political reasons, destroyed archaeological evidence of Arab occupation within Israel, including important religious sites. Meron Rapoport at Haaretzconsiders a new book by Raz Kletter (my emphasis in red and green):

“As the documents quoted in the book show, only a small part of this devastation occurred in the heat of battle. The vast majority took place later, because the remnants of the Arab past were considered blots on the landscape and evoked facts everyone wanted to forget. ‘The ruins from the Arab villages and Arab neighborhoods, or the blocs of buildings that have stood empty since 1948, arouse harsh associations that cause considerable political damage,’ wrote A. Dotan, from the Information Department of the Foreign Ministry, in an August 1957 letter that is quoted in Kletter's book. A copy was sent to Yeivin in the Department of Antiquities. ‘In the past nine years, many ruins have been cleared ... However, those that remain now stand out even more prominently in sharp contrast to the new landscape. Accordingly, ruins that are irreparable or have no archaeological value should be cleared away.’ The letter, Dotan noted, was written ‘at the instruction of the foreign minister,’ Golda Meir.”

and:

“Kletter's book leaves the impression that the destruction was not accidental and that its perpetrators were aware of its significance. The ideological foundation of the devastation is set forth in the August 1957 Foreign Ministry letter sent at the behest of Golda Meir. After the author of the document, A. Dotan, requested the Ministry of Labor to ‘clear the ruins,’ he specified ‘four types’ of ‘ruins’ and the grounds for their destruction:

‘First, it is necessary to get rid of the ruins in the heart of Jewish communities, in important centers or on central transportation arteries; rapid treatment must be given to the ruins of villages whose residents are in the country, such as Birwe, north of Shfaram, and the ruins of Zippori; in areas where there is no development, such as along the rail line from Jerusalem to Bar Giora, one receives a depressing impression of a once-living civilized land; attention must also be directed to ruins in distinctly tourist areas, such as the ruins of the Circassian village in Caesarea, which is intact but empty ... Accordingly, the Ministry of Labor should assume the mission of clearing the ruins ... It should be taken into account that the participation of nongovernmental elements requires caution, as politically it is desirable for the operation to be executed without anyone grasping its political meaning.’”

Unfortunately, Kletter appears to be following Benny Morris in the new psychopathic way educated Israelis look on Israeli history:

“Kletter says he was surprised to discover the scale of the destruction, but that to some extent he understands those who were behind the operation. The decision not to allow the Palestinian refugees to return was unavoidable, he believes, if the idea was to establish a Jewish state here. Those were the rules of the game in that period, he says, and if the Jewish community had lost in 1948, the Arab victors would likely have treated the Jews in the same way. And because it was impossible to preserve hundreds of abandoned Palestinian towns and villages, there was no choice but to demolish most of them, Kletter maintains.

He also has nothing against the archaeologists who in the early years of the state were concerned almost exclusively with Jewish sites, or in the best case with Christian or Roman sites, and ignored Muslim sites almost completely. It is natural for researchers to be interested first and foremost in their own culture, Kletter says; and besides, relative to the political pressure exerted on them by people like Ben-Gurion, who declaredly wanted to erase the Arab past of this country, they behaved honorably. ‘Early Israeli archaeology has something to be ashamed of and much to be proud of,’ Kletter writes.”

The more truth that comes out about Israeli history, the worse and worse it looks. Israelis and the apologists for Israel are completely incapable of accepting the implications of the hidden history of Israeli war crimes that is slowly being uncovered.

Friday, July 06, 2007

James Fallows reveals that in early 2001, prior to the September 11 attack, one member of Gary Hart’s "U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century" was vehemently pushing the idea that the main security threat to the United States was China, that a military showdown with China was inevitable, and that it should be dealt with immediately. That member was Dick’s wife, Lynne Cheney. Gary Hart – who would have made a superior President, which is why we got to hear about the Donna Rice hanky-panky – said: "I am convinced that if it had not been for 9/11, we would be in a military showdown with China today."

As we are now starting to see, the famous neocon hatred of China is directly connected to the Zionist desire to see the United States as militarized as possible. When the Jews bought Dick, apparently they got a two-for-one deal.

By far the most important reason for the American attack on Iraq was to remove a possible opponent of the Zionist Empire by breaking it into three small statelets. The partition was first raised in public by Leslie Gelb, who jokingly, but accurately, proclaimed that he proposed the idea as “part of the neo-conservative, Zionist, Jewish conspiracy”. The idea keeps reappearing, as if nobody had ever thought of it seriously before, and is always proffered as an idea made necessary by the Iraqis themselves, who just can’t live together peacefully.

The facts are quite different. Despite an attack meant to drive the country apart, a brutal occupation, and the ‘surge’ – a new war intended specifically to give to the Jewish Billionaries the partition that everything else has so far failed to produce – Iraq has held together remarkably well. There are ongoing problems with the ‘democracy’ foisted on the Iraqis by the Americans, but the idea of a united Iraq has survived all the Zionists can throw at it. The fact that the partition idea is being raised again is an early indication that the ‘surge’ is failing in its objective of splitting up the country, yet another in what appears to be a ongoing series of big Zionist losses.